Galilee Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in people’s care, support and outcomes. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the provider not adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s health needs were not always assessed, reviewed or monitored.

This service scored 29 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Leaders told us they did not always have time to review people’s care. People’s communication methods were not always outlined within their care plans to enable them to receive care and treatment which worked for them. People’s needs were not always assessed, reviewed or monitored.

Staff did not always have a good understanding of good practice and guidance. Staff lacked knowledge of dementia and there was a lack of guidance in care plans on how a dementia diagnosis directly impacted people. The provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards including completing Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) to review people’s risk of malnutrition or tools to determine the integrity of people’s skin and the risk of developing pressure sores.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services. Staff fed back they did not always know the needs of people when the package of care was first taken on. This was also confirmed with relatives when staff attended their family members first call.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. We found a lack of information in people's care plans on how the provider was working with health care professionals in support of people's care. There was a risk that people were not being supported with their health care needs. Although the care notes contained some information about the GP or community nurses being contacted by staff, there was a lack of recording of what actions had been taken when people were unwell. We did see some evidence that the provider was chasing for referrals for 1 person to be reviewed by the continence care team.

The provider did not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both health care expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Care plans were not always detailed around what support people needed with their nutrition and hydration. For example, one care plan stated the person was completely dependent on staff preparing their meals. There was no information on the person's preferences with food and drink. There was also no record that people’s health had been monitored in relation to these needs.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Where people's capacity was in doubt there was no evidence that mental capacity assessments or best interest decisions had taken place in relation to consent to care. For example, we were told by the provider that 2 people lacked capacity to make decisions due to their dementia diagnosis. The relatives of the 2 people also confirmed to us their family member lacked capacity. However, in 1 of the care plans under the ‘having capacity’ section it stated the person has capacity and had consented to their package of care. In the other care plan, although it stated the person lacked capacity, there was no evidence of any best interest discussion with family or external professionals. It was also recorded that this person’s relatives did not have ‘Lasting Power of Attorney’ so did not have a legal right to make decisions on the person’s behalf.